Wallet full of $100 bills

[Steve U]

G'day Jon,

Anyone willing to put up with manual focus, that is.

Yes it does sound a little pre-historic, IQ is rumored to be very good so I just put it out there as a consideration sinceJohn mentioned the 35mm1.4MKll that may or may not happen.


It does seem a little incongruous that in a fast, reportage, urban portrait style lens like the 24 and 35mm 1.4's, that you wouldn't have fast AF. But Zeiss seem to go their own way here and their acolytes seem to swear by them, saying they deliver color and contrast not found in any other lens. (except maybe John'smanual focus24mm TSE)


Back to topic, the 50mmF1.2 gets my vote for this trip.


Cheers,


Steve

[Steve U]

Oops, John posted while I was composing, his analysis as usual is very compelling. I think I

[HDNitehawk]

<span style="font-size: small;"]

<div><span style="font-size: small;"]Good suggestion! The thought crossed my mind, but I had decided against the 50/1.2 previously (opting for the 85L), partly due to reviews of the lens (favoring bokeh over sharpness, etc.). I'll revisit that decision...</div>
<span style="font-size: small;"]

<span style="font-size: small;"]The reveiws and comments I have read about the 50mm f1.2L it seems there are alot of negative comments and reviews. That is the reason I never bought one.


<span style="font-size: small;"]I always look at the negative review comments first, to see what people are saying bad. The number of people complaining about the 50mm L are d<span style="font-size: small;"]isproportionate to the number of people complaining about the 85, 35 and 24mm L's.


<span style="font-size: small;"]I have thought a few times about taking a chance on on the 50mm, because some people seem rather happy with the lens.

[Jon Ruyle]

The reveiws and comments I have read about the 50mm f1.2L it seems there are alot of negative comments and reviews.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe this is because the negative reviewers don't understand the 50 f/1.2.


My understanding (possibly wrong) is as follows: like the Zeiss 85 f/1.4 and the Canon 200 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.2 is corrected "incorrectly" (overcorrected or undercorrected, I'm not sure which). This hurts sharpness, causes focus issues (focal lengths at different f/numbers are slightly different, causing problems if you focus wide open then stop down to shoot), and hurts foreground bokeh. This is done on purpose to improve background bokeh to a level of awesomeness you cant get with a "correctly" corrected lens.


The idea is that in a well corrected lens, an oof image is a convolution of a disk (or shape of aperture blades when stopped down) with an in focus image. But by varying focal length slightly in the radial direction along the lens, a point of light beyond the focal plane (background) becomes a center-weighted disc (convolving with a center-weighted disc gives superior bokeh) while a point of light in front of the focal plane (foreground) becomes an edge-weighted disc (giving bad bokeh).


Reviewers might not realize that the lens made a design compromise in favor of bokeh at the expense of sharpness. If sharpness is more important to you than bokeh, then don't get the 50 f/1.2.

[HDNitehawk]

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe this is because the negative reviewers don't understand the 50 f/1.2.


My understanding (possibly wrong) is as follows: like the Zeiss 85 f/1.4 and the Canon 200 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.2 is corrected "incorrectly" (overcorrected or undercorrected, I'm not sure which). This hurts sharpness, causes focus issues (focal lengths at different f/numbers are slightly different, causing problems if you focus wide open then stop down to shoot), and hurts foreground bokeh. This is done on purpose to improve background bokeh to a level of awesomeness you cant get with a "correctly" corrected lens.


The idea is that in a well corrected lens, an oof image is a convolution of a disk (or shape of aperture blades when stopped down) with an in focus image. But by varying focal length slightly in the radial direction along the lens, a point of light beyond the focal plane (background) becomes a center-weighted disc (convolving with a center-weighted disc gives superior bokeh) while a point of light in front of the focal plane (foreground) becomes an edge-weighted disc (giving bad bokeh).


Reviewers might not realize that the lens made a design compromise in favor of bokeh at the expense of sharpness. If sharpness is more important to you than bokeh, then don't get the 50 f/1.2.

You may be right, people have expectations that this lens does not full fill. I would have not known about sharpness sacrificed in favor of bokeh, and have never heard this explanation before.


But to me, I would have thought the 50mm would have been designed the opposite way. That sharpness would be the most important, since 50mm is supposed to have the closest view to what the human eye would see, with little or no lens distortion (or so I have read).


When I read reviews I am very wary of what I read. But I find one indicator the number of negatives from one lens as compared to other lenses. For instance at B&amp;H there are hardly any negatives on the 35mm, 1 on the 24mm and a few on the 85mm, but a lot on the 50mm. It doesn't mean those reviews are correct, but like you say there are other reasons that the customer didn't understand.


Thanks for the explanation, and, I think you may have talked me out of wanting one. I like my bokeh creamy and subjects razor sharp. I want my cake and eat it to.

[Jon Ruyle]

Thanks for the explanation, and, I think you may have talked me out of wanting one

Really? I talked myself *in* to wanting one But I think people should understand the lens before deciding to buy it.


Like the 85 f/1.2, the 50 f/1.2 is a portrait lens. So the bokeh thing makes sense to me. But then it leaves a gap in canons lineup: there is no real premium general purpose 50mm lens (though I think the 50 f/1.4 isn't bad)

[neuroanatomist]

The term Daniel has used to describe the 50L

[Trowski]

I too was initially turned off by the many of the negative reviews of the 50mm f/1.2L. Most seem to complain about back-focusing, but more recent reviews claim that this problem has been fixed. I decided to go for it and get the lens only about a month ago. So far I've been very happy with my decision. Here's a couple sample photos I took only 2 days after receiving the lens. Wish I could show you more, but I've been so busy I haven't taken many photos lately at all. I look forward to using this lens at Christmas.


50mm f/1.2L on 5DII - 1/80 @ f/2 ISO 400





50mm f/1.2L on 5DII - 1/40 @ f/2 ISO 500





Bokeh-licious! Considering the background was only a few feet from her, I'm very impressed, and this was at f/2. I also look forward to trying out a lot more shots at lower apertures. Some complain that the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper above f/2.8 than the f/1.2... but who cares, I didn't buy the lens to shoot at f/2.8 and above. Below f/2.8, you won't get better than the 50mm f/1.2L.


DigitalRev just did a review of the 50mm f/1.2L, and they seem to echo many of the positive comments of recent reviews. They can get a bit sidetracked at times, and especially in this video, but I usually find them entertaining and informative.

It's actually quite sharp at 1.2. The focus point is well defined and sharper than a bag of stanley knives. At its widest apertures, it's one of the best performing 50mm's for DSLRs.

Digital Rev Hands-on Review of the Canon 50mm f/1.2L

My indecision about the 35L vs. 24L II stems from the fact that it seems the 24L II delivers better optical quality and has better build quality (weather sealing), but the 35mm focal length might be more useful. For one thing, I need to do some more shooting around the house with the 24-105mm set to each focal length.

A thought: Since you have the 5DII and 7D, the 24L II would serve as a 24mm on the 5DII and nearly a 35mm on the 7D. I know it's not quite that simple since there are some DoF issues, so the 24mm on the 7D isn't exactly like the 35mm on the 5DII, but I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

[Jon Ruyle]

My indecision about the 35L vs. 24L II stems from the fact that it seems the 24L II delivers better optical quality

Roger's has this to say about the 24 mark II: "Overall its a clear improvement on the original. But I&rsquo;ll be honest: its still not quite as good as the 35 f/1.4. Close, but not quite."


I get the same impression looking at Bryan's charts, but it is so close I wouldn't even consider IQ as a differentiating factor. In real wold use, I'm very impressed with the IQ of the 35.


As for build quality, I really love the look and feel of the 35- more even than most L lenses (in fact it may be my favorite L in this regard- and I've owned eight or nine others- including a couple with weather sealing). If you prefer the 35mm focal length, I say go for it (unless you really need weather sealing)


The one problem with the 35 is that the hood is rounded, so if you set it down upside down it falls over. But hey- one puts up withidiosyncrasieswhen dealing with genius.

[HDNitehawk]

I would have thought the 50mm would be the King of the FF walk around prime lens, not designed to be a portrait lens. If I wanted portraits I would go for the 85mm F1.2L.


John


When I said the image quality was better on the 24mm, that observation came from almost a year of use on both. And it really is more of a feeling after looking at thousands of pictures from both rather than an actual side by side comparison. The difference in the two is very slight, a normal person wouldn